Daybreakers

I’m sure many would dismiss Daybreakers on first glance as yet another take on the vampire genre which has been mercilessly bashed to death in recent months by an onslaught of similarly themed movies and television shows. It is clear then that the film has its work cut out for it in order to stand out from the pack and be acknowledged by its own merit. It must be extremely difficult to provide a genuinely innovative take on the genre yet, in some sense, Daybreakers manages.

Writers/directors, the Spierig brothers, have created a world in which humans have already lost the war against vampires who now rule the world and harvest the humans for blood. Daybreakers also provides a refreshing alternative to films like Twilight mainly because it doesn’t tempt you to punch yourself in the brain until you collapse unconscious or dead in order to escape from the film’s existence. Also however, it differentiates itself because the vampires in this film act as vampires should. They don’t go to high school or fall in love with dull, moronic women. They kill people. And drink their blood. However, despite creating an absorbing and well-developed world, the directors fail somewhat to provide an engrossing plot inside it, leading to a stylish but ultimately unsatisfying experience.

The film takes place in the year 2019 where the effects of a devastating plague have transformed most of the world’s population into vampires. Humans are stored in freezers and used for blood whilst the vampiric civilization operates similarly to how we do now-drinking coffee from newsstands before heading off to work. Only the coffee has blood in it and they can only commute during night hours. However, the vampire’s supply of blood is running out and they face imminent starvation, the symptoms of which include turning into giant homeless bats with melted faces. Edward Dalton (Ethan Hawke), a vegetarian vampire, is charged with finding and mass producing an effective blood substitute to save the species. However, after crossing paths with human survivor Elvis (Willem Dafoe), Edward seeks to discover an alternative solution: a cure for vampirism. This does not go down well with his evil boss Charles Bromley (Sam Neill) who for evil business related reasons must stop Edward, whatever the evil costs.

As already stated, the setting of the film offers a world constructed in an immensely detailed and imaginative manner. Dirty vampires beg for blood on street corners and even cars are redesigned in order to tailor to the newly vampire-owned world. Boasting UV repellent, black tinted windows, the cars are just one element of the environment which totally and effectively sucks you into the directors’ vision. The film also piles on the style with some effective contrasts between the glossy, futuristic interiors of the government buildings and the dark, decaying streets of the city. The stylish presentation also surrounds a thoroughly compelling concept. This is a film which doesn’t concern itself with the mystery of vampires or our efforts of repelling them. They’ve won and they’re at the top of the food chain and the film wastes little time attempting to account for them. Some may not like this but I admire the boldness in presenting a world which doesn’t waste time with exposition but just takes the audience along for a ride. Within this world too, there are several ingenious ideas which surprise me in their originality within a genre which I considered to be wrung out. Without spoiling anything, the opening scene showed a vampire acting in a way which I’d never even considered before but makes complete sense. Honestly, the style and creativity of this film really surprised me and I was delighted to learn that there is still life left in the genre.

What then, goes wrong? Well, what the film boasts in style, it lacks in substance. For me, the plot seemed unfocused and poorly executed. The first half of the film posits a villain in the bat creature army and then by the end, the film has moved on to depict a new villain, one more conventional. Many plot developments seem far too convenient, occurring at random points, accompanied by unsatisfying explanations. Also the characters don’t really get the chance to shine as we know they could with the cast this film has. Willem Dafoe is charismatic as Elvis but he never gets the dialogue or screen-time to make the role a classic. The same goes for Sam Neill who’s great in the scenes he’s in but never quite manages to make Charles Bromley truly memorable. Watching this film, I felt that the concept was the central focus of the writers’ whilst the plot was more of an afterthought.

Also, the film does not end in a satisfying way as it hangs at the end, desperately clinging to the hope of a sequel in order to continue the story. In my view, films, even if they are meant for a trilogy or whatnot, should be able to stand on their own. The ending of Daybreakers is confused, convenient and left me annoyed rather than begging for more. It’s more of a shame than anything, because the concept is so rich and ripe with potential which isn’t capitalised on by the internal story.

So what we have in Daybreakers is the classic tale of all style and little substance. The characters are fairly flat and the plot doesn’t involve the audience as it should. However, the surrounding world created by the film shows great attention to detail and imagination. There are several scenes where this really shines through and the visuals of the film certainly help to illustrate the vision of the Spierig brothers. Daybreakers won’t blow you away or stay with you for hours after seeing it but it is definitely worth a watch if just to provide an alternative to the teen-romance orientation of most vampire media today.